OK, I've gotta ask: how good are these films? I adored the LOTR films, but shied away from seeing either of the first two Hobbit films because the tone just felt off in the trailers (I know, I know, like judging a book by its cover).

OK, I've gotta ask: how good are these films? I adored the LOTR films, but shied away from seeing either of the first two Hobbit films because the tone just felt off in the trailers (I know, I know, like judging a book by its cover).

Not.

There's obviously a good story in there because The Hobbit is a good story, but these are bloated, meandering messes and if you were one of the people who liked LOTR and disliked Jackson's changes (which I was not, btw -- I just liked LOTR) you will hate this even more.

I liked Jackson's theatrical Fellowship. It shows tremendous creativity and audacity. After that, the whole project is progressively mired in post production bloat. And then the Hobbit built all the bloat in from the start.

OK, I've gotta ask: how good are these films? I adored the LOTR films, but shied away from seeing either of the first two Hobbit films because the tone just felt off in the trailers (I know, I know, like judging a book by its cover).

OK, I've gotta ask: how good are these films? I adored the LOTR films, but shied away from seeing either of the first two Hobbit films because the tone just felt off in the trailers (I know, I know, like judging a book by its cover).

I would describe them as very entertaining and beautiful movies that share 50% in common with the book. When you do hit a point that is from the book you'll be so pleasantly surprised but the rest you'll be thinking "I don't remember this happening...".

OK, I've gotta ask: how good are these films? I adored the LOTR films, but shied away from seeing either of the first two Hobbit films because the tone just felt off in the trailers (I know, I know, like judging a book by its cover).

I like the first Hobbit flick. A lot. The 2nd is very good but I was personally hoping for a better Smaug. It's not horrible, but Smaug is quite the giant cartoon.

i loved the first thirty minutes of the first film, and loathed most of the rest of it. the second film was pretty awful and i fell asleep during the endless escape sequence toward the end. i will probably watch the third film for the sake of completion, but if you've avoided them thus far i honestly wouldn't bother with them.

OK, I've gotta ask: how good are these films? I adored the LOTR films, but shied away from seeing either of the first two Hobbit films because the tone just felt off in the trailers (I know, I know, like judging a book by its cover).

I like the first Hobbit flick. A lot. The 2nd is very good but I was personally hoping for a better Smaug. It's not horrible, but Smaug is quite the giant cartoon.

You're obviously drinking battery acid. Smaug is hands-down the best dragon ever committed to film since Dragonslayer. Connery's dragon in Dragonheart would have been ok had that movie not been awful.

OK, I've gotta ask: how good are these films? I adored the LOTR films, but shied away from seeing either of the first two Hobbit films because the tone just felt off in the trailers (I know, I know, like judging a book by its cover).

I like the first Hobbit flick. A lot. The 2nd is very good but I was personally hoping for a better Smaug. It's not horrible, but Smaug is quite the giant cartoon.

You're obviously drinking battery acid. Smaug is hands-down the best dragon ever committed to film since Dragonslayer. Connery's dragon in Dragonheart would have been ok had that movie not been awful.

See, we agree but to a differant degree. I was hoping for a talking Vermithrax as far as convinicing special effects. But it's closer to Draco than Vermithrax. Vermithrax is still the best dragon on screen despite a few moments where you can tell it's a puppet. I liked Smaug, it was well done, just not well enough.

Smaug was great. Problem is, as in the book for me, he's about the only thing really worth seeing. I guess the build-up to him was worth it, but it was a long build. At least the book is short so he appears sooner.

But he was wonderfully voiced and excellently realised, aside from the inconsistency in his appearance in both Hobbit movies.

Why they turned him into a Wyvern is beyond me, it looks silly and doesn't differentiate him easily from the Dragon-like creatures the Nazgul ride on in the LOTR.